FR2855547A1 - MULTITECHNICAL APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AVOIDING EXCESSIVE FORCE APPLICATION IN A MOBILE BARRIER ACTUATOR - Google Patents

Abstract

A movable barrier actuator uses (11) a first technique to prevent the application of excessive force during a controlled movement of a movable barrier, and at least a second technique (12) to similarly prevent the application of excessive force during this movement. Both techniques can then be used to determine (13) when the application of excessive force may nevertheless occur and not be reasonably avoided. Area of application: Control of movable barrier such as garage doors , roller shutters, etc.

Description

Technical area

  The invention relates generally to movable barrier actuators, and more particularly to the fact of avoiding the application of excessive force during a movement of a corresponding movable barrier.

  Background Movable barriers of various types are known in the art, including, but not limited to, barriers sliding horizontally and vertically, barriers pivoting vertically and horizontally, barriers in one piece, barriers in multiple pieces or with panels , partial barriers, complete barriers, roller shutters and various combinations and permutations thereof. Such barriers are usually used to control physical and / or visual access to, or through an entry (or exit) path such as, for example, a doorway, building or point of entry. entry into a garage.

  In many cases, a motor or other mechanism communicating movement is used to effect selective movement of such a movable barrier. A movable barrier actuator is then usually used to allow control of the mechanism communicating the movement. In some cases, a user can control the movable barrier actuator by activating one or more control surfaces that are physically associated with the movable barrier actuator. In other cases, such control can be accomplished by wireless transmission of a remote control signal to the actuator of the movable barrier.

  Such movable barrier actuators are often used in part to control a parameter which corresponds to a force as applied during movement of such a movable barrier. On the one hand, it is desirable to provide sufficient force to ensure that the movable barrier is able to successfully travel the entire trajectory of its stroke. This may therefore require the need to apply a temporary increase in force in order to allow the movable barrier to pass through areas which, for various possible reasons, provide greater resistance to the movement of the movable barrier. On the other hand, a moving moving barrier can potentially come into contact with an obstacle.

  When an obstacle causes resistance to movement of the movable barrier, a significant increase in the applied force can potentially be detrimental to the movable barrier, the obstacle, or both. Therefore, many movable barriers tightly control the force applied in order to reliably determine when an possibly inappropriate level of force is applied, thereby enabling a safe response.

  Despite the above, even in a system that tightly controls an applied force, there is still a desire to detect potential problems within the system to thereby further ensure safe and efficient operation of the system. movable barrier actuator.

Brief description of the drawings

  The above needs are at least partially satisfied by providing the multitechnical apparatus and method avoiding the application of excessive force in a movable barrier actuator, described in the following detailed description, considered in particular in conjunction with the drawings , in which: Figure 1 includes an overall flow diagram as configured in accordance with various embodiments of the invention; Figure 2 includes a flowchart as configured in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; Figure 3 includes a simplified block diagram as configured in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; Figure 4 includes a simplified block diagram as configured in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; Figure 5 includes a flow diagram as configured in accordance with another embodiment of the invention; Figure 6 includes a simplified block diagram as configured in accordance with another embodiment of the invention; and Figure 7 includes a simplified block diagram as configured in accordance with another embodiment of the invention.

  Those skilled in the art will appreciate that elements of the figures are illustrated for the sake of simplicity and clarity and have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example, the dimensions of some of the elements of the figures may be exaggerated with respect to other elements in order to help better understand various embodiments of the present invention. In addition, common but well known elements which are useful or necessary for a commercially executable embodiment are usually not shown in order to promote a less complicated view of these various embodiments of the present invention.

detailed description

  In general, according to these various embodiments, a movable barrier actuator uses a first technique to prevent the application of excessive force in at least one first predetermined potential position of the movable barrier actuator, and further uses at least one second technique (which second technique is advantageously different from the first technique) to further prevent excessive application of force to the first predetermined potential position of the movable barrier actuator. The two techniques are then used to estimate whether the movable barrier actuator reliably avoids the application of excessive force in the first predetermined potential position of the movable barrier actuator. When this is true, the actuator of the movable barrier operates normally. When this is not true (meaning that excessive force may not be safely avoided), the movable barrier actuator instead performs a predetermined action. In a preferred embodiment, this predetermined action may include, for example, stopping the movement of a moving moving barrier and / or reversing the direction of movement of the moving moving barrier. In other embodiments, the predetermined action may include (additionally or as a separate action) providing an alarm.

  In accordance with one approach, the movable barrier actuator uses a first technique to detect a force such that it is likely to be applied relative to a selective movement of a movable barrier to produce a first result of detected force, and a second technique (which is preferably different from the first technique) for detecting such a force again. The results of detected force are then evaluated to determine whether the movable barrier actuator is likely to have a reliable indication of the force applied during normal operation. When this is true, normal operation results and / or continues. When this is false, the movable barrier actuator performs a corresponding predetermined action. One controller or multiple controllers can be used to materialize this approach.

  According to another approach, at least two control devices are provided. Both control devices receive end-of-travel information (such as, for example, an upper limit position for the movable barrier, a lower limit position, or both) and both control devices receive also travel information of the movable barrier (as produced, for example, by a sensor of the number of revolutions per minute which is functionally connected to a motor putting the movable barrier into motion). In addition, this approach keeps a history of previous strokes of the movable barrier and advantageously makes this information available at least to the second control device. Thus configured, the first control device uses the end of travel information and the travel information of the movable barrier 15 when it selectively moves the movable barrier from a first position to a second position (such as, for example example, from a fully open position to a fully closed position). The second controller uses end-of-travel information, travel information of the movable barrier, and history of previous travel of the movable barrier to determine if and when movement of the movable barrier under the action of the first control device must be bypassed. For example, in a preferred approach, the second control device determines the moment when a confluence of race information and end-of-race information is incompatible with the history of previous races of the movable barrier ( using a degree of incompatibility sufficient to determine that the actuator of the movable barrier cannot sufficiently assure that excessive force will be avoided in the event that an operational incident occurs).

  Referring now to the drawings, and in particular to Figure 1, in accordance with these various embodiments, a movable barrier actuator follows a process 10 which uses 11, a first technique for preventing the application of excessive force and which uses 12, a second technique (which is preferably different from the first technique) to also prevent the application of excessive force during a controlled movement of a corresponding movable barrier. As described in more detail below, a wide variety of techniques can be adapted and used in this way. In a preferred embodiment, both techniques are essentially integrated with the actuator of the movable barrier itself (i.e., although remote peripheral detection platforms and / or the like can be used when desired or appropriate, the detection mechanisms are advantageously configured in a more integrated manner with the platform itself of the movable barrier actuator). Process 10 then determines 13, if, based on the first and second techniques, the movable barrier actuator can probably reliably avoid a case of application of excessive force. When the application of excessive force can probably be avoided, process 14 enables or otherwise ensures normal operation of the actuator of the movable barrier. On the other hand, when the application of excessive force cannot be reliably avoided 25, the process 1Q performs at least one corresponding predetermined action 15.

  Referring now to Figure 2, a first more detailed embodiment includes a movable barrier actuator process 20 which detects a force 30 21, as it is likely to be applied with respect to a selective movement of a movable barrier using a first technique, while also detecting, 22, such a force by the application of a second technique which is preferably different from the first technique. In one embodiment, one or both of these techniques detects a force such that it may be presently applied to selectively move the movable barrier. Process 20 then uses the detected force results as obtained by these two techniques to establish whether the movable barrier actuator 5 is likely to have a reliable indication of the force applied to move the movable barrier. This results in normal operation 24 when a force is reliably captured, while an appropriate predetermined action 25 may follow an opposite determination.

  FIG. 3 generally illustrates the parts concerned with a movable barrier actuator 30 which can be used for the execution of such a process. A comparison unit 31 is operatively connected to a first force detector 32 and to a second force detector 33, 15 o the first detector 32 detects an applied force according to a first methodology, and the second detector 33 detects an applied force according to to a second, different methodology. These force detectors can be based on any of a wide variety of detection criteria concerned, including, without limitation: - the number of revolutions per given time period of a rotary element of an engine movable barrier actuator; the time between pulses of a sensor of the number of revolutions per minute; - an elapsed time as it appears between specific positions of the movable barrier during a stroke of the movable barrier (including, without limitation, an elapsed time as it appears between a position of end of stroke of the movable barrier and an intermediate crossing point, an elapsed time as it appears between an intermediate crossing point and an end position of the movable barrier, an elapsed time as it appears between at least two points of 35 intermediate passage, or an elapsed time as it appears between indications captured from absolute position, to name but a few); - an observed change in the impedance of a position potentiometer; - a counter-electromotive force such as produced by a direct current motor of the actuator of the movable barrier; - an elapsed time as it appears between cases of brush switching events of the motor of the movable barrier actuator; - an elapsed time as it appears between sliding events of the motor of the movable barrier actuator; and - a slip of a mechanical clutch.

  Thus configured, the comparison unit 31 can compare the force results as supplied by the two force detectors 32 and 33 to each other (alternatively, multiple force measurements can be taken by the use of multiple force detection techniques while using only one sensor to obtain such measurements; in such an embodiment, these multiple results are further compared with each other by the comparison unit 31), then , for example, compare the resulting difference to one or more thresholds. The magnitude of the threshold can be set to be small or large as appropriate to suit the desired degree of performance sensitivity. Multiple thresholds can be provided to allow, for example, dynamic use of variable thresholds to thereby track, for example, changing, predictable, or dynamically sensed operating conditions or parameters.

  As noted above, these processes allow or perform a predetermined action following the determination that a force may not be reliably captured. To support such a predetermined action, the comparison unit 31, following the detection of force detection conditions which may be unreliable (such as can be deduced, for example, when the difference between the applied force sensed , according to the first and second 5 detectors 32 and 33, exceeds a predetermined associated threshold) can output a signal which can be used to automatically stop the movement in progress of the corresponding movable barrier and / or to automatically reverse the movement in moving barrier course. If desired, an optional operation priority unit 34 can be operatively connected to the comparison unit 31 and can be used to perform such a predetermined action. Thus configured, this operation priority unit 34 responds to an indication 15 coming from the comparison unit 31 concerning an unacceptable lack of reliability of the force measured by constituting itself the source of a predetermined action output 35.

  This comparison unit 31 and this operation priority unit 34 can be embodied in various ways which are well understood in the art. For example, they can be configured as specialized independent components within the actuator of the movable barrier, or either or both can be configured in a more integrated fashion. In addition, these constituents can be provided by the use of a specialized single-use platform or by appropriate programming of a programmable platform. Such a programmable platform can be, for example, the main control device for the actuator of the movable barrier or can be a secondary control device having a role of monitoring the operation and the behavior of the main control device.

  Reference will now be made to FIG. 4 to illustrate an example of a movable barrier actuator 40 with two control devices. In this embodiment, the movable barrier actuator 40 includes at least a first control device 41 and a second control device 44. In this embodiment, the first force detector 32 is operatively connected to both first control device 41 and the second control device 44, while the second force detector 33 is functionally connected to the only second control device 44 (if desired, the second force detector 33 could obviously also be connected to the first control device 41). In this configuration, the first control device 41 is used to control a movable barrier 43 via a movable barrier interface 42 in accordance with a well known technique of the prior art. As part of this ordinary and normal mode of operation, the first controller 41 receives applied force information from the first force sensor 32 and uses this information to anticipate excessive force application during a controlled movement of the movable barrier 43 (as is also well known in the art).

  The second control device 44 serves, in this embodiment, to use the information coming from the first and second force detectors 32 and 33 to establish whether the actuator 40 of the movable barrier, and in particular the first control device 41, is likely to receive reliable information relating to the force substantially being applied (or recently applied). In this embodiment, the second control device 44 is not used to determine whether a force as applied at any given time is, in fact, excessive. Rather, the second controller 44 is used to determine whether the first controller 41 is likely to receive information reliable enough to allow likely valid determinations in this regard. (If desired, the second controller 44 could, of course, also be configured to self-monitor the application of excessive force, and such determination could serve as redundancy security or a point of comparison for the activities of the first control device 41). (As noted earlier, it would also be possible to use a single sensor in conjunction with two different force finding techniques to provide the force information to the first and second controllers 41 and 44. It should be well understood that such alternative approaches for the provision of force information fall within the scope of these embodiments).

  Thus configured, such a movable barrier actuator 40 can readily (and even substantially continuously) use two different approaches which both react to the application of a force to a movable barrier to establish whether a force is reliably detected. . For example, if the relative amplitude of a force as captured by the two approaches differs considerably between the two approaches, one can draw a reasonable conclusion which is that at least one of these resulting force measurements is probably bad. This notable difference can then be used to passively inform the first control device 41 of this condition or to actively bring about the first control device 41 and / or the interface 42 of the movable barrier (and / or a connection of 'coupling 30 concerned as it may be arranged between them) to start to operate in accordance with a specific predetermined precautionary action. The magnitude of difference which is sufficient to trigger such a response can be appropriately selected according to the needs and requirements of a given arrangement and of a planned or expected application.

  Referring now to Figure 5, according to another embodiment, a movable barrier actuator process 50 may provide, 51, limit switch information (such as, for example, limit switch information upper part which corresponds to a fully open position of a movable barrier and / or lower limit switch information which corresponds to a fully closed position of the movable barrier) and stroke information 52 (such as a direction of movement in course and / or 10 a present speed and / or an acceleration of the movement of the movable barrier).

  In addition, this process collects and retains, 53, course history information concerning the course of the movable barrier. For example, this history may contain partial or complete information regarding a distance (or distances) traveled by the movable barrier when it moves to a specified position (such as a fully open or fully closed position) during one or more previous race events. Such a history can be kept in the form of one or more discrete records, each record corresponding to a particular race event. As one of the other possible alternatives, this history could also be kept as an average of several previous racing events.

  It may be appropriate to erase this race history information from time to time, either in part or in whole. For example, a history which reflects running behavior beyond a predetermined threshold number of running cycles may be abandoned (or more lightly weighted in comparison with more current information>. In another example, when a adjustment of force limits is taken over (either by a user or by an automatic dynamic adjustment process as is well known in the art), it may be appropriate to adjust, partially delete or totally delete historical information For example, when a limit switch is mounted by a user or when a force limit is otherwise established, re-established or modified in accordance with an initialization or a mode of learning operation dynamic, history information can be cleared or changed as appropriate.

  The process 50 then uses this end-of-travel information, this travel information and this travel history information to determine, 54, whether priority must be given to the ordinary operation of the actuator of the movable barrier. For example, when a convergence of travel information and end-of-travel information does not match the previous travel history of the movable barrier, there is a risk that excessive force amplitude can be applied because the actuator of the movable barrier may not now operate with reliable information regarding the position, movement, direction of movement or other relevant behavior of the movable barrier. In this embodiment and in such circumstances, the process 50 will take priority, 55, over the ordinary operation of the actuator of the movable barrier to thereby reflect this increased risk condition. When the race information, the end of race information and the history record are substantially in agreement with each other, the process 50 can continue to allow the present movement 56 of the movable barrier and / or to continue otherwise to allow the execution of ordinary operations by the actuator of the movable barrier.

  A movable barrier actuator 60 configured to support such a process 50 appears in Figure 6.

  According to this embodiment, a first control device 41 receives both end-of-travel information 61 and travel information 62 as indicated elsewhere above and uses this information during normal operation of the interface 42 of the movable barrier 5 (and therefore of the movable barrier 43). A second control device 44 also receives the end-of-travel information 61 and the travel information 62 while also having access to the travel history of the movable barrier as described above. This stroke history 10 of the movable barrier can be retained in the second control device 44 itself or can be retained outside of the second control device 44. For example, part or all of the history of stroke of the movable barrier could optionally be contained in a separate memory 63 (if desired, such information could of course be distributed across multiple storage platforms as is well understood in the art). Thus configured, the second control device 44 can use the end-of-run information, the run information and the stored iDformation which characterizes previous strokes of the movable barrier to determine the moment, for example, when the second control device 44 must take priority over the first control device 41 or 25 must otherwise request by instruction, or act on, the activities and operation of the interface 42 of the movable barrier.

  Referring now to Figure 7, a more detailed description will be given of an illustrative embodiment of this type. The first and second control devices 41 and 44 advantageously consist of suitable programmable platforms such as microprocessors or microcontrollers (although other platforms, including dedicated wired platforms, may certainly be sufficient to these purposes when configured appropriately in accordance with these teachings). The end position information 61 includes, in this embodiment, an up end position information 71 (such as, for example, it corresponds to a fully open position for a movable barrier which moves at least partially in a vertical direction between a fully open position and a fully closed position) and downward limit switch information 72 (which corresponds, for example, to this fully closed position). Information regarding other limit switches (including absolute limit switches, relative limit switches and dynamic limit switches) can also be used as appropriate and as available in a given embodiment. The race information 62 can be provided by the use, for example, of a number of revolutions per minute sensor 73 which provides information such as it relates to the activity of an engine which is used for selectively move the movable barrier. As before, the first and second control devices 41 and 44 are both operatively connected so as to receive such information.

  Using such information, the first controller 41 selectively controls movement of the movable barrier while also often undertaking other activities. For example, in this embodiment, the first control device 41 controls a lamp (not shown) via a light switch 74 (the latter often comprising a transistor-controlled relay). For example, the first control device 41 can cause the lamp to light up when the movable barrier is caused to begin to move from a stationary position.

  In this embodiment, the first control device 41 also provides a control output signal to each of an up switch 75 and a down switch 76, these switches being appropriately connected, for example, to an interface of the movable barrier to thereby cause the interface of the movable barrier to take corresponding actions which cause the movable barrier to rise and fall, respectively.

  In this embodiment, the second control device 44 is connected so as to receive the end-of-travel information 71 upwards, the information 72 of the end-of-travel downwards, the number of revolutions per minute of the sensor 73 as well as the directory 77 of the race history (assuming that the latter is used when the second control device 44 does not already contain a sufficient quantity of such information). Based on appropriate processing and comparison of this information, the second control device 44 then supplies, in this embodiment, priority intervention control signals to the light switch 74 and to 20 the climb switch 75 to cause, for example, the interface of the movable barrier to begin to move the movable barrier in an upward direction, despite a contrary signal delivered at the output of the first control device 41 (in a form As a preferred embodiment, the flow of energy to the down switch 76 passes through the up switch 75 so that when the latter is "open", energy can be supplied to the down switch 76. lowering and, conversely, when the raising switch 75 is "closed" (as occurs when the second controller 44 provides a priority signal as described above), the lowering switch 76 is t deprived of energy despite the presence of an actuation signal from the first control device 41, thus ensuring the ability to operate on a priority basis from the second control device 44.

  It can be seen from these various embodiments that a movable barrier actuator can operate reliably in a manner capable of avoiding excessive application of force during movement of a movable barrier without necessarily requiring the use of external peripheral force detection and / or obstacle detection mechanisms (although these can be used by being integrated or added to these embodiments, as desired). It is therefore possible to reduce the cost 10 while also allowing a reduction in the complexities associated with the installation of such a system.

  Those skilled in the art will recognize that a wide variety of modifications, changes and combinations can be made with respect to the embodiments described above without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention, and these modifications, changes and combinations, considered to be within the scope of the inventive concept.

Claims (19)

  1. A method comprising the following steps, applied to a movable barrier actuator: - the use of a first technique to determine a force capable of being applied with respect to a selective movement of a movable barrier to produce a first force result detected; - using a second technique, which is different from the first technique, to detect the force in order to produce a second result of detected force; the use of the first and second detected force results to establish whether the actuator 15 of the movable barrier is likely to have a reliable indication of the force; the use of the reliable indication of the force during normal operation when the reliable indication of the force is likely to be available; - taking a predetermined action when the reliable indication of the force is not likely to be available.   2. Method according to claim 1, in which the first technique is based on at least one of the following phenomena: - a given number of revolutions per period of time of a rotary element of a motor of the actuator of the movable barrier; - a time between pulses of a number of revolutions per minute sensor; - an elapsed time as it appears between specific positions of the movable barrier during a stroke of the movable barrier; - an observed change in the impedance of a position potentiometer; - a counter-electromotive force such as produced by a direct current motor of the actuator of the movable barrier; - an elapsed time as it appears between 5 cases of brush switching events of the motor of the movable barrier actuator; an elapsed time as it appears between sliding events of the motor of the movable barrier actuator; and 10 - a slip of a mechanical clutch.   3. Method according to claim 2, in which the phenomenon of an elapsed time as it appears between specific positions of the movable barrier during a stroke of the movable barrier comprises at least one of: - an elapsed time such that it appears between an end of travel of the movable barrier and an intermediate crossing point; - an elapsed time as it appears between an intermediate passage point and an end of travel of the movable barrier; - an elapsed time as it appears between two intermediate passage points; - an elapsed time as it appears between indications captured from absolute position.   4. Method according to claim 1, in which the first technique and the second technique are each based on at least one of the following phenomena: - a given number of revolutions per period of time of a rotary element of a motor of The actuator of the movable barrier; - a time between pulses of a number of revolutions per minute sensor; - An elapsed time as it appears between specific positions of the movable barrier 35 during a stroke of the movable barrier; - an observed change in the impedance of a position potentiometer; - a counter-electromotive force such as produced by a direct current motor of the actuator of the movable barrier; - an elapsed time as it appears between cases of brush switching events of the motor of the movable barrier actuator; - an elapsed time as it appears between sliding events of the motor of the movable barrier actuator; and - a slip of a mechanical clutch.   5. The method of claim 1, wherein the use of a first technique to detect a force comprises the use of the first technique to detect a force as it is likely to be applied presently to selectively move the movable barrier.   6. The method of claim 1, wherein: - the use of a first technique to detect a force comprises the use of the first technique to detect a force as it is likely to be currently applied to move selectively. the mobile barrier; the use of a second technique for detecting a force includes the use of the second technique for detecting a force as it is likely to be currently applied to selectively move the movable barrier.   7. The method of claim 1, wherein: the use of a first technique for detecting a force comprises the use of a first processing platform to use the first technique; and the use of a second technique to detect a force comprises the use of a second processing platform to use the second technique.   The method of claim 7, wherein the use of a second processing platform to use the second technique comprises the use of a second processing platform to use both the first technique and a another technique for detecting a force such as is likely to be currently applied to selectively move the movable barrier.   The method of claim 1, wherein the use of a first technique and the use of a second technique comprises the use of a first processing platform to use both the first and second techniques.   The method of claim 1, wherein the use of the first and second detected force results to estimate whether the actuator of the movable barrier is likely to have a reliable indication of the force comprises comparing them with first and second force detected results.   11. The method according to claim 10, wherein the comparison between them of the first and second results of detected force comprises the comparison of a resultant difference with at least a first threshold.   12. The method of claim 1, wherein taking a predetermined action comprises automatically stopping the movement of the movable barrier.   13. The method of claim 1, wherein taking a predetermined action comprises automatically reversing the movement of the movable barrier.   14. Movable barrier actuator comprising: - a first force detector having an output comprising a first indication of a present force capable of being exerted during a movement of a movable barrier, which first indication is based, at least in part , on a first technique to ensure the strength present; a second force detector having an output comprising a second indication of the present force capable of being exerted during a movement of a movable barrier, which second indication is based, at least in part, on a second technique for provide present force, which second technique is different from the first technique; - A comparison unit which is functionally connected to the outputs of the first and second force detectors and which has an output indicating a lack of reliability of the force measured.   15. Movable barrier actuator according to claim 14 and further comprising an operation priority unit which reacts functionally to the output indicating a lack of reliability of the force measured.   16. Movable barrier actuator according to claim 15, in which the operation priority unit comprises an output with predetermined action.   17. Movable barrier actuator according to claim 14 and further comprising first control means which is operatively connected to the unreliability indication output of the measured force for controlling the actuator of the movable barrier in accordance with a first control strategy when the present force is capable of being reliably detected.   18. Movable barrier actuator according to claim 17 and further comprising a second control means which is operatively connected to the output of indication of unreliability of the measured force to control the actuator of the movable barrier in accordance with a second control strategy when the force present may not be reliably detected.   19. A method comprising the following steps, applied to a movable barrier actuator: - the use of a first technique to prevent the application of excessive force in at least one first predetermined potential position of the actuator of the movable barrier 15; the use of a second technique, which is different from the first technique, to prevent the application of excessive force in at least one first predetermined potential position of the actuator of the movable barrier; the use of the first and second techniques for evaluating whether the actuator of the movable barrier will reliably avoid the application of excessive force in the first predetermined potential position of the actuator of the movable barrier; the conduct of normal operation of the actuator of the movable barrier when the application of excessive force will probably be avoided; - taking a predetermined action when the first and second techniques indicate that the application of excessive force is likely to be impossible to avoid.